Results...

Well, it's time to take a break and breathe a bit... the elections results have been announced, and barring a major violation (one that judicial feels is worthy of disqualification) our Board of Directors is set for next year.

The Results:

President Madeleine McKenna
Vice President Eric Shellan
Faculty and Administrative Affairs Jed Bradley
Operations Sarah Round
Community Relations Yong Cho
Diversity Efforts Ben Lealofi
Programming Sam Weinstein
Organizational Relations Jonathan Yan

As I told several people, I expected One Campus to win five seats on the Board. I just missed which five. Jed and Sarah couldn't lose, which is two of their five. Of the remaining six contested races, One Campus walked away with three positions (the top two and Org Relations) and Team Legacy took the other three.

The races were quite close in several races with margins as slim as 60-80 votes.

An interesting trend to note is that the margins of victory were rather high in the President and VP races, but then got very close in the Directorships. Madeleine won by almost 9%, almost 800 votes separated her and Beto. Eric won the VP with more than a 300 vote margin. Then you look at CR which was decided by 64 votes, or Programming by 62 votes.

The key detail here is that the farther down the ticket you went, in general, One Campus votes died off more and more, to the point that the contested directorships almost entirely went to Team Legacy. The one exception being Org Relations, which went to Jonathan Yan who has a rather strong voter base in the Greek Community. This kind of voter fatigue generally means that the voters were not informed and were simply casual voters who stopped at a table, a party, or some other spot to vote for the ticket who was speaking to them at the time. Team Legacy built a very stable voter base that didn't suffer as badly from voter fatigue, which allowed them to take half of the contested positions.

There are three races I want to discuss here now: Programming, Community Relations, and Organizational Relations.

Programming was a very close race, between Sam and Jocelyn. I think both women have very good ideas, but honestly, I expected the win to go to Jocelyn. Sam worked hard, along with the rest of Legacy, and she earned her spot on the Board.

Community Relations, also very close, seems like it was decided by two factors: the Daily's dig at Tunny and a general dissatisfaction with Tunny in the community. The Daily brought up a good point that Tunny had abandoned a key duty, which probably highlighted other missteps or mistakes he has made this year. Also, when it came down to the final round, when Pasha's 1400 or so votes were split between Tunny and Yong, 400 didn't list either, but the other 1000 split in favor of Yong. It took Tunny from being in first by a couple dozen votes to losing by a few dozen votes. IRV is a killer. In the end, it seems this race became a referendum on Tunny's performance this year and the voters decided on change.

Organizational Relations. Neil and Rory both lost, rather thoroughly, so the race clearly did not go to the most qualified candidates. Nor did it go to the candidate who was most demonstrably passionate about the race, the position, and the entities, Nick Booher. It went to the candidate who has the least real experience, who made the most aggressive attacks, and who managed to alienate all of the groups he will have to work with next year. On top of the myriad of faults Jonathan Yan has, he didn't even come to the elections results ceremony. Just like he skipped out early at all of the forums. A good part of success is showing up. Another large portion is communication skills. Let's all hope that Jonathan Yan is a better Director than he was a Candidate.

The last thing I am going to discuss are violations. Elections violations must be filed by 5pm tonight, I believe. Major or minor, the results will be the same. Candidates will likely be fined or required to fulfill some community service hours, if they are punished at all for any violations. Precedent was reaffirmed two years ago that even willing and conscious major violations will not cause a candidate to lose their seat. It would take a violation so egregious that it borders on criminal activity, and I hope our candidates were smart enough to avoid committing crimes in the process of seeking election.

I'll be watching to see what kind of violations were filed, and I wonder how the tickets will defend themselves.

Podcasting...

So, on Monday I got to sit down with Teo and Camillo, two regulars around ASUW. The two of them have been recording a talk show style podcast for a bit now, and they asked me to be their guest to discuss ASUW, the elections, and a few other topics. The original conversation lasted more than an hour, but Teo has edited it down some.

I hope you enjoy listening to it, because I really enjoyed getting to talk through the things I write about here.

Their website is: www.camandteo.com

The Daily's Endorsements

Today, the UW Daily put out its endorsements for the ASUW elections.

Pres: Madeleine McKenna
Vice Pres: Eric Shellan
FAA: Jed Bradley
Ops: Sarah Round
Community Relations: NO ENDORSEMENT
Org Relations: Jonathan Yan
Diversity Efforts: Ben Lealofi
Programming: Jocelyn McCurtain

Six out of eight races, the endorsement went to the One Campus candidate. Let's break down their reasoning for their endorsements.

President:

• Madeleine has experience with ASUW and student related issues. Other candidates lack that experience. This point makes sense and is a fairly strong one.
• Madeleine has budgetary experience which the other ASUW "insider-ish" candidates lack. I don't think I agree with this point, and certainly don't think this was supported by what the candidates said at the forum. This is a weak point based on weak facts. Both Kyle and Beto have significant budgeting experience; Kyle from her time in RHSA and on the ASUW BoD, and Beto from his time in La Raza.
  

1/2 of the Daily's points are solid, which means I think this endorsement comes from very weak logic.

Vice President:

• Eric's experience in the Office of Government Relations organizing students to come to Olympia means he will be able to ensure volunteers are dedicated to their duties for ASUW. I think this is a weak point because there is significant difference between working with another staff member to coordinate 200 volunteers for a one day event and working to interview, appoint, and oversee hundreds of volunteers over nine months. Eric's job in OGR was not focused on Higher Education Advocacy Day. The logistics, the planning, and recruiting were primarily the duties of Alex Soldano, OGR's Legislative Planning Coordinator. Now, because I was in Olympia, I'm not sure how the two of them worked out the details, but it seems that Eric is claiming Alex's work and reaping the benefit of it.
• Eric has more direct experience working with volunteers than Shauna Stadnik. Again, I think this is a weak point. Eric did directly manage several volunteer office managers this year, so he does have direct experience working with volunteers, but Shauna was chair of a committee of volunteers last year and was President of her Community College student association.

In their introduction to the VP endorsement, the Daily says that it took multiple rounds of voting to select a VP to endorse, and that fact is obvious from the weakness of their two primary reasons for endorsing. Having sat on multiple committees that had to select one candidate over another for a position, these reasons look to be very small reasons to pick one over the other.

FAA and Ops:

• Both have a lot of current experience.
• Both have detailed goals and plans for next year.
• Both are running unopposed.

Solid reasoning, nothing to complain about.

Community Relations:

The Daily chose note to endorse anyone for some very solid reasoning.

• Pasha did not physically make it to two opportunities to express himself and his vision to the Daily.
• Tunny has not lived up to what the Daily is looking for in CR, so why give him a second chance?
• Yong did not demonstrate to the Daily that he is qualified for the position.

It's a very harsh place to be for the three candidates. Pasha lost the endorsement simply by not being there; Tunny, apparently, lost it for the same reason, just over the course of the year instead of missing two opportunities; and Yong was called out rather bluntly.

Organizational Relations:

• Jonathan has a clear vision for the four entities and enterprises. Extremely weak point. As I've pointed out before, Yan's "clear vision" is anything but clear, or visionary. He does not understand the roles of the entities he seeks to work with. He does not understand the role of the Director of Organizational Relations. He does not understand what efforts the entities are currently putting out.

As I said in the comments section of the Daily's endorsements online, I think they missed the mark by a very wide margin with this endorsement, and I would have preferred they simply not endorse anyone rather than endorsing a bad candidate.

Diversity Efforts:

• Ben has a strong presence and personality, both on campus and personally. This is a strong point. Diversity Efforts needs to be able to be seen to be on campus, and they need to have enough personality to speak up and be heard.
• Ben has a thorough knowledge of the communities and diversity issues on campus. Another strong point. That knowledge is key to fulfilling the duties of Diversity Efforts. It is knowledge, so it can be learned... but having it at the start is a very big advantage.
• The Daily feels Ty Huynh and Kyle Rapinan have been either too close into ASUW or too far away from UW, respectively. It seems the Daily chose Ben as a middle of the road candidate, by the last point.

All in all, this endorsement makes sense by the logic the Daily put out. Sure, the points can be debated, but as it stands, it holds up I feel.

Programming:

• Jocelyn has proven her programming ability in CORE. Strong reasoning here, because she has put on a wide range of programs and shown that she can draw people in.
• Jocelyn has plans and ambitions for programs for next year, including methods to work with and around the limitations Condon hall will put on ASUW's efforts. Another strong reason.

The Daily did say that this was a hard decision, and I agree with them entirely on this position. All three show a thorough understanding of the position and what the Director will need to be. This endorsement also makes sense, and holds up.

Totals...

All in all, I think 5 of their 8 endorsements make sense. The top two (Pres and VP) were poorly worded and almost came across as damning the candidates with faint praise. The endorsements themselves should have been better. There are plenty of reasons to endorse either Madeleine or Eric, but the reasons the Daily chose just don't hold water.

Their endorsement of Jonathan Yan is, frankly, insulting. I almost feel as if the endorsement committee and I were sitting in a different forum listening to him speak.

Late Breaking Campaign

Write in campaigns are few and far between in ASUW, and usually center around squirrels, jedi knights, or Middle Earth. This year, however, there is a write in campaign being organized to get people to vote for Neil Rotta for the Director of Organizational Relations.

As I have said before, both in this blog and in real life, I consider Neil to be the ideal candidate for Org Relations. He has served in the Experimental College, the largest of the four entities/enterprises ASUW operates, for two years as Assistant Director and currently Director. He has sat on the Student Technology Fee Committee for several years, serving as Chair of the committee for two years. Neil has served in the student senate for his entire career at UW.

Org Relations has to work with ASUW's entities and enterprises and represent ASUW on several committees, most notably, STF. Neil is eerily perfect for Org Relations.

Had Neil run with any of the campaigns, I would consider him a shoe in for the job based on qualifications alone. He would lend the weight of his experience to whichever ticket, and (having spoken with him) would have drawn a different crowd into the voting booth.

The facebook group was made public just last week and only has some forty members, but there are many notable faces listed as members... myself included. Organizational Relations is one race I will publicly say who will receive my first place vote, and that vote will be going to Neil Rotta. I doubt he'll be able to generate enough steam to win, but I think he deserves my vote.

Here's the facebook group.

An interesting thing to note about this campaign is that Neil is not leading it. Other people have decided to put Neil forward and recommend him to others. No, Neil is not rejecting their support... in fact, he's a member of the group too... but it's rare to see any campaign pushing for a candidate that isn't lead by that candidate.

RHSA's lack of a Presidential Endorsement

I mentioned this morning that I would be doing some digging, and I've spoken with a few people and read the minutes myself. On that point, the RHSA minutes are very bare bones in some areas and very detailed in others, so I'm sure some things were lost in translation.

To begin, when I got onto campus this morning, a good number of people asked if I'd heard about the "drama" at RHSA last night, so I of course asked what happened. The most basic retelling was that Beto had been tapped to receive the RHSA endorsement by the Endorsements Committee, but was rejected by the General Council... which is dramatic in and of itself. Generally, in the years I've paid attention, when the Endorsement Committee selects someone, the General Council approves of them. Rejecting someone is very harsh, and reason enough to be whispering about drama, but it gets deeper.

Multiple people I spoke with felt that the circumstances behind the rejection were suspect. Facts were laid out... the primary person questioning Beto during the meeting is a One Campus Volunteer; the behavior of several reps was pointed out as suspicious; another position was initially rejected as well, but was then reconsidered and approved; the main argument against Beto was the main strength of the One Campus presidential candidate, Madeleine McKenna. Hearing those points definitely peaked my interest, and got my mind thinking.

Thinking as a political kind of person, if I were either a candidate who lost a major endorsement or that candidate's campaign director/manager, how would I mitigate that problem? I could downplay the importance of the endorsement; I could send in as many volunteers as I could muster to change the endorsement; or I could sink the endorsement for someone else. Option #1 looks weak and is fairly obvious, which is also the problem in option #2... that move is rather blatant. Option #3 could be done stealthily enough that it would fly under most people's radar, but still be effective. Looking at the facts I was presented, it looked like One Campus had pulled option #3.

I had these thoughts this afternoon, and began asking people who were there what happened... asking them what they saw, what they thought, and posing a few hypotheticals to them. Most thought option #3 was possible, but not likely.

Then I actually asked people affiliated with One Campus, to see what they thought. Time after time after time they looked as if I'd hit them with a hammer. None of the candidates I spoke with had even considered that they might scuttle someone else's endorsement, nor had the campaign staffers I spoke with.

So, there I was, sitting with a situation. Some people think it's obvious that there were political motivations behind rejecting Beto; others thought it could be possible; and still others denied it wholeheartedly. I did what anyone who didn't actually see a meeting would do: I read the minutes. (I did ask for these from the RHSA officers, and got a draft version. I understand they normally don't turn them around that quickly... so thank you all!)

The One Campus volunteer in question asked two questions of Beto, both were advocacy focused, which is the focus of Madeleine's platform. This does make it look bad, right away. That a known volunteer for a campaign would ask multiple difficult questions on a single topic that happens to be his candidate's strength... it makes it look like a planted attack. The behavior that I heard about isn't reflected in the minutes, so I can't confirm that at all... which means I'll set it aside and will not consider it.

The last fact that had been presented was that the VP endorsement was also rejected, at first. Looking at the minutes, there were no questions for Shauna, nor was there any discussion of her or her platform before she was rejected in the first round. This does look bad for One Campus. It would hurt a lot if neither of their top two received the nod from RHSA. When the General Council rejected Shauna without debate or conversation it looked as if there were ulterior motives for not confirming her endorsement. The fact that they did go back and reopened debate on Shauna takes some of that sting away, but that they rejected her without reason still makes option #3 look plausible.

So, after talking with people on all sides of the issue and reading the minutes myself... it would be damned hard to confirm anything, but I don't think it was an organized attack on the opposing candidates. Volunteers who are heavily involved in campaigns and other organizations on campus should take note though. When you act, people watch and listen, and it does reflect on the people you support. More than one person I spoke with said that the way things happened changed who they would be voting for, and that was just from the actions of a volunteer or two.

RHSA Endorsements

Good Morning all!

So, after the RHSA/IFC/Panhel forum, I sent an email to Almeera Anwar, the President of the Residence Hall Student Association, to ask if RHSA would be endorsing anyone, and when their endorsements would be public. Almeera got back to me with both a list of their endorsements and a statement about how their committee came to their decisions. Read below:

Endorsements:

President: No Recommendation

Vice President: Shauna Stadnik

Director of Community Relations: Tunny Vann

Director of Diversity Efforts: Ben Lealofi

Director of FAA: Jedediah “Jed” Bradley

Director of Operations: Sarah Round

Director of Organizational Relations: Nick Booher

Director of Programming: Sam Weinstein

(we definitely mixed up the tickets – we believe in endorsing individually)

This year, a committee of individuals decided who currently serve as RHSA reps decided who would be endorsed. The only information used in this decision process was the candidate’s platforms, their experience and qualifications (as listed in their application), and what was said at the RHSA/IFC/Panhellenic Forum on Tuesday, May 4^th. All other outside information is not included in the decision process because we look at that as a slippery slope and feel that people should be held accountable to their words to our constituents at the forum and what they plan on doing, as noted in their platform. We always deliberate immediately following the forum so in this case, we started at 10:00 pm on Tuesday and went until 3:30 am the following morning. We really work to make sure we remain neutral in the process and that we make an educated decision.

The primary things we looked at when endorsing were how well they answered our question to them, the messages in their platforms, whether they will engage and support the residence hall community and finally whether we believe they are the best candidate for the job. The residence hall component and actually answering our question were weighted the heaviest.

I served as the non-voting Chair of this committee and took pro/con as well as statements of why we chose to or chose not to endorse for all positions and candidates. However, this information is not public and was available to general council yesterday but was re-sealed as of 7:00 pm last night and therefore is no longer available to anyone.

Almeera was the MC of the forum as well, and has graciously volunteered to take any questions you might have. You can email her at rhsapres@hfs.washington.edu or leave your comments/questions here and I'll relay them to her.

Now, my thoughts on these endorsements...

I am surprised that there was not a Presidential endorsement. There are five strong candidates, who bring distinctly different views to the table, and it seems like this is a time RHSA would want to endorse one over the others to help their membership decide whom to vote for.

Shauna receiving the VP endorsement is not a surprise. She performed very well at the forum, giving detailed, well thought out answers. The same for Tunny in CR.

Jed and Sarah are running unopposed, but did still answer the RHSA question and submit a platform, so I am glad to see the RHSA did endorse them.

Ben Lealofi, Nick Booher, and Sam Weinstein all come from the Team Legacy Ticket, and all received the RHSA nod for Diversity Efforts, Organizational Relations, and Programming. I am impressed that Legacy secured three endorsements. I can definitely understand why Nick got the nod, when compared with his opponents, and Sam might have had some home field advantage, but I doubt that was the bulk of why she received the endorsement. Sam had good, solid answers and addressed them well to the Residence Halls. It makes sense for them to endorse her.

I'm going to do some digging, see if I can find the minutes from the RHSA meeting, talk with anyone who was there, and see if there's more to the story than just these endorsements.

RHSA/IFC/Panhellenic Forum: My Opinions

I honestly enjoyed the forum rules applied by the Res Halls and Greeks. No need to introduce yourselves, just answer the question and get on with it. Unfortunately, after a while, several of the candidates wasted part of their answer time to introduce themselves. It irked me... but I'm a stickler for following rules.

They addressed Ops and FAA first, because those positions are running unopposed. Sarah and Jed both answered their questions fairly well. I will question how often One Campus candidates bring up their plans to do a big voter drive in Autumn Quarter because that is something that has been on the to-do list here in OGR for some time. It's something I've been working on, talking with Tim (the current President), and working with other statewide actors. I don't really think it's something One Campus can claim as their idea.

Organizational Relations:

Jonathan Yan was asked the first question... how would we help the entities reach out and connect to the Residence Hall Students? The first half of his answer was rambly and weak, and honestly did not address the question at all... then he brought out his tried and true "Buzz Marketing." Rory was asked the same question, and though she did answer the question, he answer was rambly and poorly put together. She brought up that the move to Condon Hall would force the entities to be closer to the freshmen dorms as well as the apartment style housing in Stevens Court, and that she would continue outreach for the Food Co-Op brought up in the Senate Forum. Nick, also asked the same question, addressed the crowd by skype from California. His answer also had some good details, different ideas and details than Rory's answer, but still good details. It was a shorter answer, but it hit all the necessary information. Brevity is often a good thing.

On the next question, Jonathan was asked what public outreach he would do with the entities... at that point, Jonathan had one of his ticket mates throw him one of ExCo's stress balls (an excellent piece of buzz marketing, don't you agree?) and he went off about how putting "exco.com" on the ball instead of the full name "experimental college" was a bad thing... two points, note the website for the Experimental College is "exco.org" and if you don't put your website on your promotional material, how will people find you? Jonathan then went off on a tangent about how he would have the entities out giving away things like the stressballs during Dawg Daze and what not. Maybe Jonathan just doesn't pay attention during the Fall and Spring Quarters, but when the weather is nice you'll find dozens of Experimental College frizbees flying all over campus and the UDistrict. ExCo and the other entities already give away promotional things during Dawg Daze and just about any other time there are large crowds who could take them. Again, Jonathan seems to think he is coming up with brand new ideas about how to revolutionize how the entities market themselves, when they already do everything he has suggested.

I will say that Jonathan was less aggressive than he's been in any of the forums... so that's a good thing.

One rather shocking thing that received very little attention was that Rory Raabe, in her closing statement, claimed she has been endorsed by the current Directors or Managers of all four Enterprises/Entities. That is earthshaking news. Generally, Directors and Managers don't publicly endorse candidates, though it has happened in the past, but if all four have endorsed Rory, that's a clear sign as to who they think the best candidate is. I've checked with two of the entities personally, and yes they have endorsed Rory, and I assume Rainy Dawg has as well. I have no reason to doubt that the Bike Shop did too, but I'll check with them later.

Programming:

The three ladies running for Director of Programming all put in good showings at this forum, but there were two gaffes/flaws I'd like to pull out. In the second question, what would you do to make Greeks aware of events on campus and draw them in, Sam gave a great answer... to a different question. Her answer was good material, good ideas, but it did not address the question at all. Her answer was all about how she would use the Publicity and Programming Committee to help publicize events the Greeks were putting on. She didn't address bringing them back to campus at all. Missing that point, I think was a major misstep. The other gaffe was when Evelyn was giving her closing statement. She re-introduced herself as "Evelyn Jensen, running with the One Campus Ticket...." There were audible gasps from members of all three tickets, and those of us in the crowd who knew which ticket she was really running with. It wasn't a major misstep, just a slip of the tongue, but it will reflect poorly on her because it was one of the last things she said to the audience.

Diversity Efforts:

All three candidates were hit or miss at this forum. Kyle hit his experience in the greater Seattle Community heavily, and rightly so; Ben hit his connection to the UW communities, also rightly; and Ty Huynh shared more of her personal story, going off script, and made herself more approachable. Kyle and Ben both gave rather long answers in a couple of spots that really didn't answer the questions they were asked.

One question I have for Ben, or anyone who knows... in multiple forums he's said that we need to "infiltrate a family friendly environment..." and I really am not sure what he means when he says that. Anyone know?

Points for boldness go to Ty Huynh. When asked about the long running divide between the Greek Community and Diversity Efforts, Ty Huynh called out one of the most controversial areas: the Queer Community. She said that there is a "lack of sensitivity for the Queer Community in the Greek system..." and to solve that she plans on initiating Safe Zone training in the Greek system. Taking on homophobia in one of the bastions of heteronormative society... damn. Like I said, she gets points for boldness.

Community Relations:

There really wasn't anything new brought up during this section of the Forum. Tunny still brought up his experience, Pasha was still friendly and jovial, and Yong brought up the List Servs and websites again. Tunny's answers showed awareness of the issues and the familiarity that being an incumbent brings. Pasha's were fresher, more idealistic... still good answers, but several of them won't stand up to a year in the position.

Vice President:

Again, four strong performances... even though Sarah Chow wasn't present, her Campaign Manager did an admirable job of covering for her. Shauna gave several well thought out, detailed answers that impressed me. She has clearly thought through the duties and has ideas of how to improve the position. One very bold statement came from Sarah's CM, Amanda... in her closing statement she said that Sarah "has had the job for two years, without the title."

President:

We have a tri-polar race going here, in my opinion. On one side, we have the outsiders (Chris and Sam) who bring two distinct viewpoints with their own set of ideas and beliefs; on the opposite side we have the establishment candidates (Madeleine and Kyle) who both bring a wealth of experience to the table, albeit different experiences; and then we have the underrepresented candidacy (Beto) who is working to represent the groups that traditionally aren't heard in ASUW.

Chris flat out said that ASUW will fundamentally change if he is elected. While Sam didn't actually say it, his answers implied that same kind of radical change. Both are approaching what ASUW is and what ASUW does in ways that recent Presidents haven't. If either is elected, there will be a steep learning curve... both for the new President, and for the rest of the Association.

As for Kyle and Madeleine, both are painting themselves as the Experience Candidate, and both have a right to the title. Madeleine has been in ASUW longer and has had to deal with more of the duties that the President would deal with. Kyle has a wider base of experience from her time in RHSA and as Programming Director, and has worked with a wide range of people and groups this year that would serve her well next year.

Beto, as was pointed out last night, has been endorsed by 32 different groups... many of which are underrepresented RSOs or minority groups. He is positioned to be a President that will speak for the unheard. The question many people have asked is: will he also be the President for the majority? I think Beto could do it, and if elected will do it, but he needs to convince the majority to vote for him too, if he wants to be elected.

Senate Forum: My Opinions

First and foremost, there were two glaring flaws at the Senate Forum. 1. The microphone was much too hot and thus the candidates all came across as much too loud; and 2. The candidates simply were not given sufficient time for anything. 20 second introductions, 30 second responses... the candidates who tried to keep within the time limits sounded like squirrels on speed and those who didn't try were cut off.

Having the candidates submit a written answer to a question and handing that out was interesting, and fairly helpful. Kudos on that Senate leadership!

Diversity Efforts:

As the first position of the night, these candidates were hurt the worst by the loudness of the microphone... but, on content related issues... the first question asked for three tangible goals that they would work toward achieving if elected. Kyle and Ben both failed to answer this question. Both gave a single, wishy washy answer. Kyle said he would work to increase advocacy on campus and Ben said he would work to maintain the connections he already has with the communities. Underwhelming and incomplete answers. Ty Huynh's answer, while not much more inspiring, actually answered the question... she listed off three goals and how she would achieve them. So, points go to Ty Huynh for actually listening and answering the question.

Operations:

Sarah is running unopposed, was comfortable in front of the "home crowd" and had a nice moment. Nothing horrible happened here.

Programming:

Evelyn needs to think about how she sounds when she speaks. She has good ideas, but so many of her sentences end in "you know?" or are bridged with "like..." that she is doing herself a major disservice. When asked what is a new idea you would implement, outside of Home Coming, Jocelyn and Sam both showed initiative and pulled out shiny relatively new ideas. Jocelyn brought up her Quad Fairs idea and Sam a Battle of the Bands sponsored by ASUW A&E and Rainy Dawg Radio. Evelyn's answer left a lot to be desired... she brought up the Husky Pride Fund... which while important, isn't a new idea nor did it really address the question.

Community Relations:

Tunny avoided the pitfalls he's fallen into in previous forums, but definitely was rushing to get out every word he could. That said, he did bring a lot of different, well thought out, ideas to the table at this forum. Yong's ideas were much weaker... again he brought up list servs and websites that we already have and use. Pasha didn't bring as many ideas to the table, but he was likable. He made some jokes, and he mentioned repeatedly that he just wants people to be happy. An admirable goal.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs:

Jed is running unopposed, but he took questions anyway and gave good answers. His closing statement was essentially a blatant plug for his ticket, which he admitted from the podium. I will say that I think his statement that the One Campus Ticket has the most experience and is the ticket to support if you want someone who can defend your voice, your UPASS, etc, is a bit overblown. There are extremely qualified people on all of the tickets, and his ticket has at least one glaringly weak candidate who has precious little experience.

Organizational Relations:

Nick Booher was out of town for family reasons, so his campaign manager spoke on his behalf. She introduced herself as Elaina, and I'm hoping I spelled that correctly. Rory gave a half-hearted introduction and stated that her main goal was better communication between the organizations and the Board of Directors. Jonathan gave essentially the same introduction speech as the previous forums, but it was much slower. Slo-Mo aggression, if you will.

When asked about the current Task Force looking into establishing an Organic Food Co-Operative on campus, potentially as a fifth ASUW Enterprise, Jonathan completely failed to address the question. His answer had absolutely nothing to do with the Co-Op. He might have said the words "Co-Op" and "enterprise" a couple of times, but the meat of his answer was about "getting people involved" in the enterprises. Rory's answer showed she knows the issue and has at least done some research into it, speaking with the current Director. Elaina gave a decent answer for Nick, saying that he would definitely continue the work that had been done this year and that he would have to consider whether it should be an Enterprise or not himself.

When the candidates were asked what they felt the most important role/duty of the Director of Org Relations is, all three said Liaising between the Entities and the Board. To that end, Rory and Elaina (for Nick) both said Communication and listening were key skills. Jonathan said that the liaison aspect is most important, but that he wants to build it into an oversight position. He then went on to claim that his "business background" made him qualified to do that kind of oversight. In all of the forums I've been at, and after looking through all of the campaign materials, the only "business" background I've seen is that he is currently in the business school. I'm sorry, but classroom learning does not equate to background... just because I've sat in a classroom comparing the religious and political institutions of Mexico and Iran doesn't mean I have a background in Comparative Political Relations. If Jonathan does have real experience, he should list some of that, rather than simply claiming to have it.

Lastly, in their closing statements Elaina and Rory were fine. Jonathan went off into an odd surreal moment talking about how he's hungry and he wants to be like the Cookie Monster. It was at that point that one of the current Directors of one of the enterprises leaned over and said "What, is he going to eat us?"

At this point, we took an intermission....

Vice President:

The four VP Candidates all did well tonight. No one made any major gaffes or committed any grievous sins. Sarah Chow was absent, due to illness I believe, so her Campaign manager spoke for her and did a solid job of it too. The one flaw that was actually pointed out to me was for Eric. When he spoke, a few of his answers or comments came across (to those of us who know him and work with him) as jokes or Eric teasing a bit... to others in the audience who don't know him, they came across as arrogance and irreverence. Three different people brought that up to me, so I think including it here makes sense.

President:

Honestly, I would not be upset if any of these five candidates were to be elected. Tonight, they all showed very well, giving nuanced answers that generally addressed the points of the Question. One thing candidates should be wary of is following their opponents' answers too closely. At one point, Kyle answered a question how to advocate for groups other than her personal base. Kyle answered the question fairly well, but in the end diverged onto her general philosophy about student government. Beto and Chris both essentially answered Kyle's answer, rather than the original question. Sam and Madeleine got back on track and answered the question fairly well, but with rather different answers.

One extended awkward moment was when the candidates were discussing money. The question brought up that with the budget cuts would ASUW also be making cuts, especially to executive pay. Madeleine answered first, listing out a dollar figure for the President's pay and asking students if they knew where all that salary money went, and then saying that this year's Board has already acted to make what cuts are possible. After her, the other candidates almost seemed to be in a competition to see who cared the least about how much money they'd be paid.

Well, that is enough for now, I think. As always, these are my opinions... feel free to ask questions, or if you want to see my notes I'll share them with you. I'll type out my response to the IFC/Pan-Hel/RHSA forum tomorrow morning. I've got to go sleep some... I have a class in 7.5 hours.

Daily Forum: My opinions

To begin with, this forum was an odd mixture of formal and casual. Several of the candidates stepped up their game from the ECC forum (I'm looking at the jacket, shirt, slacks combo on Chris Teeny, and the neat tie and hair on Eric Shellan) but a few others went the other direction, dressing down for this event (Evelyn, Kyle Rapinan, and Jonathan Yan being key examples). The room the forum was held in was chock full very quickly, if a bit later than planned. The Daily's Editorial Board had a lengthy list of questions, and they managed the candidates and the speaking time well. Like in the ECC forum, the Directors went first, though FAA and Ops were excluded because they are running unopposed. (I hope that the Daily will not simply endorse those two candidates, despite not hearing them at the forum, unless the Daily did receive some sort of Q&A time or form from those two positions.)

Something to note, was that for the Director Positions, the One Campus candidate always sat to Stage Right placing them as the first candidate to receive questions and give their opening and closing statements. It looked like an obvious tactic to plant themselves in the memories of the audience, except that when we came to the Vice President and President, the One Campus candidates were farther down the line, if not at the very end. Did something go wrong, or was this planned at all? I'm not sure anymore, but it is something to note.

EDIT: Apparently I remembered incorrectly, and only half of the Directorships had One Campus candidates speak first.

To begin... Community Relations:

Pasha was notably absent from this forum. I am told he had a class obligation, but submitted answers to the Daily's board before hand. Part of being a student leader is being a student, so we'll have to forgive him this absence.

Strengths on display tonight... well, Tunny put out at least two very solid ideas that I think should be followed up on as soon as possible: incorporating ASUW into Transfer Tuesdays and appointing more Associate Directors of Community Relations. The first idea is an excellent method of reaching out to students who often have excellent leadership experience coming from their Community College, but who rarely hear about ASUW. The second idea is actually quite similar to an idea I've proposed in late night conversations with other ASUW dinosaurs... it is one of my long standing beliefs that CR should be the head of an office that has a set of volunteers or paid staff who help the Director reach out to as many communities as possible. It's good to see someone else seeing a similar idea. I wouldn't call them "Associate Directors" but that's a minor detail. Yong Cho's answers came across as sincere and heartfelt.

Weaknesses were a bit more abundant. Yong frequently would begin his answer strongly, confidently, and then begin to trail off as he ran out of words. Something he should work on is knowing when, and how, to end an answer. He also needs to develop his ideas. The ones he put forward tonight are things we, as ASUW, already do. We need to see something new from him to feel the urge to support him. Tunny's weaknesses came in two flavors: Major Gaffe and Minor Issue. The minor issue was that he re-used his introduction. Those of us who come to multiple forums notice when you use the same phrasing time and again, and it shows a lack of originality... a lack in the ability to tailor your speech to the audience at hand. This can be fixed with some practice and a bit of coaching. The major gaffe came into play when Tunny was asked why previous CRs had met with the Daily every week and Tunny had not. Tunny launched into an explanation of his personal relationships with Daily staffers, and then said that he "didn't feel like weekly meetings were necessary." That should have been phrased differently to take away from the bluntness of it.

Tunny came out the clearly stronger candidate after this forum.

Diversity Efforts:

Watching this section after the ECC forum was rather odd, honestly. Ben was quieter, more direct. Ty Huynh was much less scripted and had meatier ideas. Kyle didn't really display the substance behind his ideas as well. All three candidates performed differently than they did at the previous forum.

Strengths... Ty Huynh looked much more comfortable, and she sounded that way too. She was able to bring out ideas and plans when asked about her measurable goals as Diversity Efforts. I was impressed.

Weaknesses. One thing that leapt out at me from several of Ben's answers was that he kept saying he is an advocate for things, higher education, diversity, queer people, poly people, etc. but he never really said how he has been an advocate. Right now, I don't know what he's done that makes him an advocate. I want to know, though. Hopefully he'll give some detail at the next forum. Ben also needs to make sure that he answers the question that has been asked. In my notes on his answers, several of them say "didn't really address the Q" or "partially addressed Q." Kyle also ran into this problem a couple of times, where he delivered interesting material and answers, but they didn't address the question he was asked. Another weakness for Kyle was that he was directly asked how he would increase his presence on campus as opposed to the great volume of work he's done off campus, and his answer to that particular question was rambly and weak. He needs to have a stronger answer to that question in particular. Ty Huynh needs to keep working on staying off script... she was much better tonight, and only faltered twice, but they were obvious moments. If she can keep those under control, she'll do very well in the next two forums.

Organizational Relations:

To begin with, Jonathan Yan was less aggressive this time than he was previously. His speech was almost the same, minus the blatant attacks on Rainy Dawg, but it was tamer and less strident. The tone of this portion of the forum was much more peaceful than it was at the ECC forum.

Strengths... Nick impressed me. He came out much more confidently than he did in the previous forum, but managed to support his confidence with his qualifications and ideas. The fact that he has met with incoming and out-going managers and directors is a mark in his favor. Rory was also able to get out some of her ideas and qualifications, showing how she has improved the DJ experience at Rainy Dawg.

Weaknesses... Starting with Nick, I think he didn't really have a major weakness tonight. He is as strong as most previous candidates for the position were (in years past) and presented well tonight. Rory flopped one question in particular. When asked what were some measurable ways she had improved Rainy Dawg in her time as Assistant Manager, Rory only listed one measurable method of improvement. That is a problem. Her improvement was good (I even listed it as a strength), but one improvement is not enough to float that question.

Jonathan Yan's weaknesses were on display tonight. When asked what specific methods he would use to improve the entities' visibility, he pulled out the tried and true "Buzz Marketing," which is an acceptable answer, but then he kept talking in rambling sentences that didn't make much sense. He was discussing potential cross promotion between the entities and said "You know, Bike Shop and the Experimental College can do a really great event..." and then went on to another rambly sentence. I am sure that the Bike Shop and the Experimental College could do a really great event... but what would it be? What would its purpose be? When asked what the biggest challenges facing the four entities are, his answers were generally weak. Visibility, communicating what they do, sustaining themselves? When it came to Rainy Dawg, though, Jonathan almost did a 180 degree turn from his treatment of that entity at the ECC forum. He said that they're really great, that they've got listeners, and they're doing good, but he'd like to shift money from their personnel budget into the website. (This point, I think is another example of how Jonathan doesn't really understand how to fix a problem he sees. How do you "put money into the website"? You either have one of your current employees get paid to fix it or you hire a new employee to do so. I am guessing, just guessing, that Rainy Dawg's Technical Manager's job duties include maintaining the site.)

I think that paragraph is long enough, for now... so let's move on.

Programming Director:

The first thing I want to note about all three candidates is that they all gave very long answers. Brevity is appreciated!

Strengths... Evelyn came into this forum much calmer than she did the ECC forum. That was good to see. Jocelyn presented at least one new idea that should be implemented, whether or not she gets elected. The idea of Quad Fairs next year is excellent. She also showed that she has been thinking ahead and planning for the move to Condon already this year, which shows foresight and good planning. Sam's main strength tonight, I feel, was the breadth of her experience. She listed off a half dozen programs that she has either been involved in or put on herself. That kind of experience would serve well in the role next year.

Weaknesses. Evelyn needs to have details in her answers. When asked what the biggest challenge facing the Programming Director for next year was, Evelyn repeatedly referred to "these groups." What groups? The question didn't address groups at all. Later, when asked for programs that aren't currently under ASUW's supervision the only one she brought up was Home Coming and the Home Coming Rally. She will need to diversify her portfolio of ideas to get back into the race.

I still cannot decide between Sam and Jocelyn over who is the stronger candidate. Both bring significant experience to the table, both have good ideas, and the more I think about it, the less I think either is a bad choice.

Vice President:

Strengths.... Dalia and Sarah both gave strong performances tonight, giving good answers. Dalia walked the stage area, almost as confidently as she did the ECC's stage. Eric was much more comfortable than in the ECC forum and gave much stronger answers than before. He went into detail, described how he would actually perform the duties of the VP, and in general hit the right notes. Shauna also hit a lot of right notes, and presented a lot of good information. All four candidates were good tonight.

Weaknesses... I'm not quite sure, myself, if this should be considered a weakness, but Eric was cracking jokes throughout his time on stage. Talking about appointing "some rando" to a committee, and yet right then also talking about how we need to give and receive respect in the community. It was a mixed message at least. Shauna needs to make sure she thinks her answers through quickly before giving them. In one answer, her second sentence argued against the point of her first sentence, and in that same answer she said "if elected President..." which is a minor gaffe for the VP candidate. One glaring point was Sarah's answer regarding the Ballot Measure question. I'll admit that I didn't even know what the question was referring to, and had to send a series of quick text messages to find out. Once I knew it was the University Agenda proposal, it made more sense... but the question didn't give enough information. That said, Sarah did her best to answer the question and came out OK. She'll want to do some research on that topic ASAP.

I'm not going to label this a strength or a weakness, but Eric used my most recent favorite quote twice. He quoted Justice Scalia's point that politics and democracy take a certain amount of civic courage. Eric gets kudos from me for the quote.

President:

Over all, the five Presidential candidates all made strong showings. Madeleine was much more comfortable tonight than she was at the ECC and it showed. Her answers were cleaner, her posture was less aggressive, and she relaxed enough to make a joke or two. This was definitely a stronger showing for her. Beto apparently decided to follow Eric's example from last week and came in with the rumpled look, his shirt un-buttoned. A general rule to follow is: if you are going to wear a suit to a forum, wear the suit properly. Sloppy suits speak softly. Aside from his suit, Beto's answers were mostly on point and well phrased. I will say that he did not answer the question about what his legislative goals in Olympia are.

Sam and Chris were both comfortable on stage, but were also coming at the whole idea of ASUW and the Presidency from a different angle than the other three candidates. They are the outsiders, and they're both more than competent to do the job. If either gets elected, I expect to see some significant changes in how ASUW operates.

Kyle was very at home at this forum, much like she was at the ECC forum. She gave good solid answers, but did get a bit playful at times. This was shortly after the rather joke-filled VP period, so maybe it made sense. I'm not sure.

Of the five candidates, Madeleine, Beto, and Kyle had some of the hardest questions, and they gave some of the most detailed and thorough answers. I especially liked Madeleine's response to the question about alternative methods of making student voice heard; Kyle's answer regarding controversy with the Daily and the campus community; and Beto's answer regarding increasing SAF and Transportation fees. All three answers were nuanced and had a lot of depth.



As always, if you'd like to take a look at my notes or have an in depth conversation about what I've posted or your opinion on what happened, I'll make time for it.

Daily Forum: expectations

From what I've heard, the Daily Forum will be structured with the Daily's panel asking mostly situational questions. They've sent out a request via facebook for anyone with questions for any of the candidates to send in questions. Here's part of the message they sent out:

This week, the editorial board has decided that in the interest of both time and purpose, the format of our forum will not include an opportunity for audience members to ask questions at the event.

Instead, we are encouraging anybody who has an idea for a question to either facebook-message myself or send an e-mail to opinion@dailyuw.com. Please be sure to specify what position the question(s) is/are targeted towards, and if there is any candidate in particular they are meant for.

We're looking forward to seeing you all there!

-Ivan

So, if you haven't sent in a question yet, hurry up before it's too late! I, personally, sent in a question for each of the candidates/positions (yes, even the unopposed ones).

What I am expecting, and even hoping for, is for the Daily panel to grill the candidates. This is the opportunity to present hard questions and make the candidates think on their feet. Questions should require the candidates to actually think about the role of the position they are running for, the duties that are required, as well as their ambitions for the position.

The candidates who come to this prepared with their ideas ready and an open mind ready for curve balls will outshine their peers and opponents.

I'll be in the audience taking notes again and will put together a summary, like I did at the ECC forum, in case you can't make it yourself, but still want to know what happened, who said what, and as always, what my opinions are about the whole event.

PS: Also, if you're feeling nostalgic for the last time we had multiple tickets running and heated debate, check out this link.

Where's the Funding?

So I know this blog is separate from what I do at work, but I wanted to make sure anyone reading it knew about the event tomorrow evening...

It's called WTF? Where's the Funding? and will be held in the HUB Auditorium at 6:30pm. Frank Chopp, the Speaker of the House, Leslie Goldstein (the Governor's advisor on Higher Education), Margaret Shepherd (UW Lobbyist), Andrew Doughman (student journalist who was in Olympia during the Session) and Mike Bogatay (Executive Director of the Washington Student Association) will be answering any and all questions students care to throw at them.

If you're a candidate, this would be an excellent opportunity to make sure you know what happened in Olympia, and if you're a student at UW this is the place to find out why your lecture hall is now standing room only.

See you all tomorrow!

Fact Check from last night

Hey All,

At last night's forum, there was one issue that called for fact checking. A key point of one of Kyle Fuller's answers was about pushing for a Diversity Requirement for all students. Essentially requiring all students to take a class that teaches them about a culture, like a Women's studies course, or a Chicano studies course. Directly after presenting this idea, Madeleine McKenna spoke, saying that she had had a conversation with Dean Ed Taylor on that very idea, and that he said it was not feasible at this time.

I used to work for the Dean, so I thought it would be an easy thing to check, and it was.

Dean Taylor received my email late last night and responded within half an hour. He agreed that he did say that it was unfeasible at this time, noting that in years past a similar push was made but failed. That failed push did cause the creation of a Diversity Minor though. Dean Taylor goes on to say that he would suggest connecting with other key administrators if this idea is one that ASUW wishes to pursue. He said this might not be the right time or climate, but that it is a worthy concept for ASUW to pursue.

ASUW Elections Forum, hosted by the Student Advisory Board

First thing I will tell you is that the forum was advertised as beginning at 4:30 and ended at 8:45, so there were four hours of candidates giving their spiels to the audience. Several candidates noticed, however, that the vast majority of people in the room were either associated with one campaign or another, or they were an ASUW insider already. I'm one of the latter.

The forum was organized with the Directors presenting in alphabetical order, followed by the VP and the President. Each candidate was allowed to introduce themselves, and then received a prepared question, then there were questions from the crowd. There were quite a few supporters for Team Legacy filling up the Stage Left side of the theater, and the ticket itself entered the theater to Michael Jackson. Definitely an interesting choice. Dr. Sheila Edwards-Lange was sitting in the front row, and she stayed for the entire forum, so many kudos go out to her.

Let's dive in....

Community Relations:

Pasha, from Husky Nation, was the first speaker, and he introduced himself, and his ticket, as wanting to bring back traditions to the campus, to build them up and bring them to the community. His question was how will he make ASUW a real part of every student's life... and his answer was by taking himself, and other BoD members, to events, by facebooking, and reaching out to as many people as possible. It wasn't necessarily the strongest answer, but it wasn't bad.

Yong Cho, on Team Legacy, was the next speaker for CR, and he brought up his roots in Korea and his time in UWLeaders. Yong's question was 'what is the ECC community, and how is it represented in ASUW.' His answer was rather rambly and vague, addressing his experiences in clubs, saying that the ECC IS diversity, and that he wants the clubs to reach out to him (as Director of CR). The way his answer rambled made it very hard to follow, and I'm not sure he really answered the question fully.

Tunny, for One Campus, was clearly the best put together of this group of candidates. His suit was impeccable, his presentation was close to flawless, and he spoke with quite a bit of confidence. Clearly, being the incumbent has given him an edge the others will have to work hard to overcome. His question was about how in the past there has been division between the North of 45th community, the RHSA, the UGC, and other groups, and what would he, as CR, do to change that. His answer left something to be desired. The first portion was mostly buzz words, but ended with a heartfelt note about walking in another person's shoes.

That segued into Tunny being asked that as the current CR, he represents the past, why should anyone expect him to do anything differently than what has been done? Tunny's answer was good, at first. He said that it is impossible to reach every community, but that he has done good work north of 45th, and will continue to work. In the second half of his answer he told the questioner that it was "unreasonable to expect one person to reach out to all communities." I think that was a foot in mouth moment, and definitely something for Tunny to avoid saying in the future. Telling a questioner that their concern is unreasonable is one of the cardinal sins of politics.

The candidates were all asked a few more questions, and their answers were all fine. Some were weaker than others, but no one made anymore large gaffes. Overall, I would say that Tunny looked the most comfortable and prepared to be up there. Yong was slouching in his chair looking bored, and Pasha had a bit of a nervous twitch going with his right foot. Candidates, remember that the audience can see you, even when you're not holding the microphone.

Diversity Efforts:

The three candidates for DE all presented very different personalities and styles of leadership. Ty Huynh was very scripted and on point, a much "cooler" style of DE than has been seen in recent years; whereas Ben was a big personality, involving the crowd and filling the room; and Kyle Rapinan was warm, but quiet.

The first question was "what does SAB mean to you?" which is the perfect question for DE, especially in the ECC Theater. Kyle's response was that SAB is the body that gets things done on campus for the underrepresented communities; it's not well connected to ASUW, but that should be changed. It was an excellent answer, that I feel strikes to the core of what SAB is and does... it's the body that works and fights for change in a much more vocal way than ASUW ever does.

Ben was asked what does Diversity mean to you... and he said that we cannot define diversity for everyone, that diversity changes based on the situation and the people. It was an interesting answer. He added that he would like to bring Diversity to the classroom, to where people are spending their time at UW.

Ty Huynh's question was about her previous experience with underrepresented groups, and how she would promote groups she was unfamiliar with. Her answer left a lot to be desired, honestly. She spoke about her experience with KhSA and the ASU fried rice competition, and then about how she would work to get freshmen trained in safezone techniques... her answer didn't really address the question. It was all good information, but needed much more focus.

One point I would like to bring up is that in about half of his opportunities to speak, Kyle said some variation on "similar to the other candidates..." or "like XXXX said..." That is a very weak method of public speaking, and makes it appear as if you don't have ideas of your own. The rest of Kyle's opportunities were full of excellent ideas and content, but I can't help but remember how many times he lifted up his competition.

I think Kyle's answers had the most substance, Ben had the best connection with the audience, and Ty Huynh was extremely well prepared. All three candidates were good, and I am still undecided as to who I will be voting for.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs:

Jed introduced himself, stated his current position as Senate Chair, and then took questions. His answers were rather rambly at first, winding their way through Jed's thought process, but eventually made a point. His third question was an obvious plant from Eric Shellan, his ticket's VP candidate, asking Jed what he was going to do to improve faculty evaluations. Jed launched into his prepared idea about getting rid of the scantron (bubble) sheets where students rate their professors and the class. He also added an idea or two about having sit down round tables with the prof after the class to discuss how to improve it. An interesting idea that sparked immediate concern.

Directly after that question, a student in the back said that she felt the scantrons were useful because they allowed students to see how other students rated their professors or classes. Jed's reply was rather dismissive and, frankly a bit rude, saying that there were other better ways to do that. Another student then questioned the round table conversation, saying that students who must follow a series of classes could be penalized by the professor, and Jed's answer was again flip to the point of rudeness. A third student then asked Jed if he would take the bubbles away without consulting students at all, because she finds them (and the course catalog) quite useful. It was at that point that Jed finally gave a serious answer saying that this was good input and that he had never heard of someone actually using the catalog (apparently he forgot the questioners just before this one) and that he would take it under consideration.

Yes, Jed is running unopposed, but flip answers will not endear him to any crowd.

Operations:

Sarah is also running unopposed, and she used her introduction to build up her entire ticket. That is the standard tactic for an unopposed candidate, so no harm no foul. Her answers to the questions were well thought out and full of good ideas. She also seemed to own the space much more than most of the other candidates.

Organization Relations:

Jonathan Yan, for One Campus, was the first candidate introduced. He built up his experience as a Marketing and Accounting major as "business experience" and his time as his House's Senator and Tunny's CR Associate Director as ASUW experience, claiming he will have a leg up on other candidates because he knows ASUW already.

Nick Booher, for Team Legacy, gave a rather humble introduction acknowledging that he was a new face because he was campaigning and saying that he wants to become known there. He also laid out the goal of making ASUW accessible to everyone.

Rory Raabe, for Husky Nation, was the last candidate to speak, and her introduction was off beat. She introduced herself as "applying for the position..." and was rather self-deprecating. She did bring up her experience as the current Assistant Manager for Rainy Dawg Radio, and the close relationship she has with the current Org Rel.

All in all, the Org Relations debate was rather negative in tone. Jon Yan began it with his rather aggressive listing of problems he sees. When he was speaking I felt like I was either being yelled at or lectured. His talking points dominated the debate and framed several of the questions, so he was definitely effective, but decidedly unpleasant. When he wasn't speaking, Jon lounged in his chair, arm hooked over the back with an odd smirk. (As I said before, candidates: remember we can still see you!) I would also like to point out that one of Jon's repeated ideas was "buzz marketing" and he described it as producing swag items like pencils with your logo on them and giving them out so students take them home and see them later. I don't know if Jon has noticed, but there are currently hundreds of paper cranes with ExCo's name all over the HUB, there are also pens and stressballs covered in ExCo's logo. I've also seen similar items from Rainy Dawg, the Bike Shop, and OCHA. The entities have been doing Jon's "buzz marketing" for years.

Rory did not present very well, in most of her answers. She seemed flustered, and rightly so as most of the questions and talking points were about the entity she currently helps to lead. She will need to work on how she presents, and show that she can be confident. I will give her kudos for standing up and calling BS on one of Jon's talking points, in which he claimed that Rainy Dawg only has 15 listeners per day. Rory got feisty and stood up for what she knows to be true. Good work there, try to keep that passion in the rest of your speeches.

Nick presented very well, honestly. He has less ASUW experience than either of his competitors, but he framed his ideas well, came off as approachable, and likable. Those are key skills for Org Relations, and he demonstrated them quite well tonight. In his closing speech Nick addressed these points head on, saying that he has a passion to learn, that he wants to learn what these entities do... and that's a very good place to start as Director of Org Relations.

Programming:

This position is one that I still cannot find a good reason to pick one candidate over the others. Evelyn has a lot of real work experience with the work the position does; Sam has similar experience from her time in RHSA in an analogous position; and Jocelyn has definitely proven her ability to put on programs this year.

Between the three, there are really only superficial differences. Jocelyn looked the best prepared and presented with more confidence than either of the others. Sam presented a much different point of reference than her opponents, coming from RHSA. Evelyn's only missteps were how often she said "ummmm" and how rambly she got in some answers. This is an extremely hard call. I'm going to continue watching the forums and campaigning to decide for my personal ballot.

Though, I will say Evelyn needs to remember the same thing I mentioned above... we can still see you when you're not holding the microphone! I'm not sure what was so interesting in the rafters, but Evelyn was staring up there for quite sometime while the other candidates answered questions.

Vice President:

Point blank, Dalia owned the space more than the other candidates. She was comfortable and dynamic in the space. I was impressed. Eric was almost that comfortable, though I did have the urge to go up there and straighten his hair and tighten his tie. Sarah was clearly passionate about the position and wants to make sure that the basics are covered, that the core duties are fulfilled, before the position expands. This contrasts directly with Eric who seems to want to grow the position, almost making it into Government Relations 2.0, or even Co-President. Both are valid directions to take the Vice Presidency into, and I'll be intrigued to see which direction the voters leap. Shauna was also very well put together, though in more casual attire than her competition. Her points were cogent and relevant and full of passion. She seems to be a happy medium between Sarah and Eric.

One rather interesting thing happened during the VP debate. When asked, by Madeleine McKenna the current VP and Presidential candidate, what change she had made to the VP did they think was important and how would it affect their work next year. Dalia, Shauna, and Eric all had very similar answers, but when Sarah answered she started out on the same track as her opponents, but then took it a step further. She said she would take the time that was freed up by the Bylaws change (allowing Committee Chairs to appoint their own volunteers without the VP and the Open Selection Process) to reactive the Governance Committee. The room literally filled with whispers for a moment after Sarah said that. I know what I think about the idea, but I'm damned curious to know why everyone else was whispering.

Lastly, Dalia repeatedly made reference in her speeches to the people "picking the right Board" or voting for the "right candidates." She even asked the room "who do you see yourself in?" When we are sitting in the Ethnic Cultural Theater, at an event hosted by the Student Advisory Board for the Vice Provost of Minority and Diversity Affairs, and there is a ticket that is primarily based in that community, those statements carry a lot of weight.

Almost done folks....

President:

Each of the candidates came out very strong tonight. One glaring flaw I have to mention is that Chris Teeny showed up in jeans and a T-shirt (though his shirt did have the outline of Africa on it). That is beyond being too casual for this kind of event. It's a forum to decide who we, the students, want as our President... the candidates should look like they could be our President.

Of the five candidates onstage, Kyle and Jilberto seemed the most at home and comfortable. They both walked the full length of the stage and interacted with the crowd casually. Sam grew into being that comfortable on the stage, and Madeleine got close by the end of the forum. Chris was getting there too.

Something I like about Chris's thought process on ASUW and the Presidency is that it is so well thought out. He brings in sociological and political science theory and makes it relevant. I was honestly quite impressed. I had to laugh, though, when Chris said that he "became aware of what ASUW was two weeks after joining Senate." I'm not sure how you could be a member of Senate for two weeks but not know what ASUW is... I'll have to ask him some time.

Sam stood by his ideas and his convictions, and I definitely respect that. I thoroughly disagree with his stance on Local Control, but that's a conversation for if he gets elected. Sam's background is definitely different than all of the other candidates, and would make for an interesting shift in ASUW dynamics.

Madeleine was very much the "advocacy" candidate, pushing the projects she has worked on this year and promoting ideas she is working on for next year. She has some solid ideas, some so solid we're also working on them up in OGR... maybe we should connect a bit more.

Like I said before, Kyle was extremely comfortable on the stage. She name checked several people in the audience (myself included) and showed a lot of passion. There were only glimpses of nerves when she lost track of a question or two.

Beto... Beto gave an extremely strong showing tonight. He had ideas, he had charm, and personality. He showed himself to be a top tier candidate, and did it with style.

OK... The recap is over... this is a summary, heavily laden with my opinions. If you disagree, let me know... we'll talk about it. If you want to see my notes, I've got them and I'll show you what I wrote down. I've got some verbatim quotes and I managed to catch almost every question or statement.

Good night and good luck folks. ;)

Instant Runoff Voting

For the last several years, ASUW has run its elections using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is a system in which voters rank as many candidates as they want in their personal order of preference. This system means that unless a candidate gets a clear 50% +1 majority in the first tally of the votes, candidates who come in second or third have a good chance of coming from behind to win.

Traditionally, in ASUW elections, there are dozens of minor write in candidates for President, and few of them receive more than a handful of votes. Those voters sometimes put a mainstream candidate as their second or third choice, allowing their votes to actually influence the election.

In IRV, there are two strategies to win: 1. Come out hard and strong to win in the first round, and 2. Accumulate votes slowly by claiming the second place on your opponents ballots.

Strategy #1 requires a lot of legwork and a lot of effort. It is a very bold strategy and requires a lot of confidence. This strategy means you have to solidify a strong base of support and work to get that 50%+1 vote. If you miss calculate, if your base of #1 votes is not large enough, you'll fail.

Strategy #2 is the more traditional ASUW route, at least in years when there are multiple tickets. A ticket, or candidate, needs to build a solid base that will make sure they survive the first serious rounds, but also need to reach out to the communities that make up the bases for their rivals.

A good plan is to combine the two strategies.

Let's take a look at the tickets we have running this year. I'll list them out and with what I think their largest voter bases are, then we can discuss what I expect, just based on past performance in those communities.

Sam Martin, base: ECC and Senate
Vote Big, base: Christian and Greek houses
Team Legacy, base: ECC and RHSA
Husky Nation, base: ASUW and RHSA
One Campus, base: ASUW and Greek

Based on how active they are, how large their facebook groups are, and their coverage in the Daily, I fully expect One Campus to come out on top in the first rounds of IRV, but probably not enough to win out right. There are five different groups out there trying to get people to vote, so I doubt One Campus, no matter how organized, will be able to claim 50%+1 in the first round.

Based on the size of their tickets and how organized they've been so far, I expect TL and HN to be in second and third. I won't call in which order they'll finish just yet.

If Vote Big is able to tap the support that Dawg Life saw a few years back, they might be able to upset some of this. That year, there were just over 4,000 votes cast, and Dawg Life was able to get more than 50% in one race and was three votes shy of that mark in another race. I'm fairly confident this year's election will bring in more than 4,000 votes, but if Chris and Shauna do their work they could claim one, or both, of the top two spots. If they do not do their work, if they don't get out there and motivate their base, their votes will likely be split between OC and HN the round after they drop.

Sam Martin looks as if he will draw votes away from TL due to the ECC connections, as well as drawing some away from OC because of his Senate connections. Here is where it is tricky... if Sam plays his cards right he'll be either #1 or #2 for all of the ECC voters and many of the Senate voters. If he coordinates his message correctly and plays each crowd correctly at the forums, he could take enough of the undecided voters to leap into the top three.

The race is no where close to being done, and any of the tickets could jump into the top two or three, but it will take a lot of work. The smaller two tickets will need to make sure that their bases are solid but also reach out to as many other groups as possible. The larger tickets, One Campus specifically, will need to make sure that their base voters are content and will actually show up to the vote. The smaller tickets will be doing their best to nip away at their base, taking voters where they are able.

My advice to the small tickets: keep working, you all have a good chance if you plan properly and work hard.

My advice to the large tickets: don't get complacent. The smaller tickets could come from behind and take you.

Activities on the Campaign Trail

So, here we are in the second full week of campaigning, and it's been fairly quiet. One Campus, Husky Nation, Team Legacy, and Vote Big all have t-shirts and buttons all over campus, and two of which have done the large flash mob style filing.

One campus has been the most active so far, with videos and tabling on campus. Generally, as I come to class and work, I don't run into too many tablers or anything, but last week as I drove into work I saw a large group of One Campus volunteers and candidates out tabling at the campus entrance on 17th. While I sat at the red light, I watched dozens of students walk by on the opposite side of the street, apparently avoiding the tablers. I saw one girl cross the street on the same side as the tablers, and she was quickly approached by one, then two, then six of the volunteers and candidates. From inside my car it seemed awkward, but things might have been different in person.

I know that the other campaigns are also building up to tabling and going around speaking with organizations, and I'll be watching their tabling activities as well. If you've seen some tabling and want to share about it, add the comment here. I'll add more as soon as I see more.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs and Operations

Because FAA and Ops are both currently unopposed, I decided to include them in a single post.

The Director of Faculty and Administrative Affairs' job includes attending the Faculty Senate, the Graduate and Professional Student Senate, and working on any/all issues that come up during the year that involve how students relate with the administration or the faculty.

The Director of Operations is one of the most internally focused position in ASUW. Ops' job can often be seen as the lawyer of ASUW. They chair the judicial committee and supervise the Office of Government Relations. They also serve as the parliamentarian for the Board of Directors.

Candidates: FAA: Jed Bradley (One Campus), Ops: Sarah Round (One Campus)

Strengths: Jed is a very strong candidate for FAA due to his time this year as the Chair of the ASUW Student Senate. His time as Chair has required him to interact with the GPSS and the Faculty Senate this year, and he has been on the front end of discussion on all of the issues that came up in ASUW this year.

Sarah's strengths also come from her time in Senate, but she was the Vice Chair, whose duties are often analogous to those of the Director of Operations' duties. She was well prepared for the jobs she will be expected to do as Ops. As Vice Chair, she served as the parliamentarian of Senate and took the issues Senate considered to the Board of Directors and argued for the opinion produced by Senate.

Weaknesses: Sarah and Jed both have one glaring weakness: they are running unopposed. The fact that they are running without opposition means that it will be difficult to get people interested in voting for them. I don't see any real weakness in either of them, as candidates for their position, which could be part of the reason for the dearth of opposition.

Diversity Efforts

The position of Diversity Efforts is honestly one of the hardest contested races this year. There are three very good candidates, and I will be watching the three candidates to see how their positions develop and how they behave on the Campaign trail.

Diversity Efforts' job, on the most basic level, is to coordinate with the ASUW Commission Directors and help bring a wide range of issues to the forefront of discussion in ASUW. Previous Directors have been very active in the Senate bringing forward resolutions and bills, others have focused on their issues at the Board level. There is potential for this position to bring ASUW into the greater Seattle community.

Candidates: Ty Huynh Chhor (Tie-win Chore) (One Campus), Kyle Rapinan (Husky Nation), Ben Lealofi (Team Legacy)

Strengths: Kyle has incredible name recognition, both on campus and off campus. His first year at UW he was very vocal and organized a response to perceived homophobia in the Daily, and received quite a bit of coverage in that same paper. He was also covered in the alternative weekly paper, the Stranger for that same issue, and has recently been mentioned on the Stranger's blog (The Slog) for his work on creating Queer Youth Space on Capitol Hill, a traditionally gay neighborhood that doesn't currently have much in the way of space for those under 21. That name recognition paired with obviously successful community organizing makes him a formidable candidate.

Ben's strengths are his connection to the communities. He is currently serving as the Commission Director for the Pacific Island Student Commission, which means that he has a weekly meeting with the other commission directors and has worked with them to put on events for the other commissions and communities. Ben has also served in the Office of Minority Affairs/Diversity, which put him in a place to work with members of each of the communities the Director of Diversity Efforts would work with.

Ty Huynh has spent this past year working to educate as many people as possible about what is happening within ASUW, the UW, and our communities, as well as what is happening that will affect those communities. During the Legislative Session, she covered several of the key issues on her video blog.

Weaknesses: Ben's weakness is that he cannot point to many specific examples of work he has done to further the interests of any one community. Yes, he has been the Commission Director, and yes he has been involved, but when reading his list of involvement it's full of "member of this" and "participant in that..."

Ty Huynh is similarly weak in that she also can't point to a specific example of something she did that made a difference. She lists a lengthy group of issues she has worked on, but does not say what she actually did to work on them.

Kyle's weakness, I feel, is that he might seem "too off campus." A lot of his activism seems to be aimed off campus, which is the end goal of every student, but we need to see how he will take that off campus experience and put it to work here at the UW.

Programming

The Director of Programming can be an under-utilized position, past Directors have worked diligently in the late summer and over Fall quarter to put together Homecoming events and then allowed their position to simply linger around Board meetings. Recent Programming Directors have taken on other projects, like the Husky Pride Fund, and have been much more active throughout the year.

Candidates: Jocelyn McCurtain (One Campus), Evelyn Jensen (Husky Nation), and Sam Weinstein (Team Legacy).

Current Positions: Evelyn currently serves as the "associate Director" to Kyle Fuller, the current Programming Director. Again, as in Jonathan Yan's case, the job duties seem to be assisting the Director in everything they do.

Sam is the current Residence Hall Student Association Programming Director. As mentioned before, in recent years the RHSA Programming Director has run and been elected as the ASUW Programming Director, possibly due to their sharing a title and very similar job descriptions.

Jocelyn is the current Director of the ASUW's CORE (Committee Organizing Rape Education) and has served as an RA in the past.

Strengths: Sam is a very strong candidate for the position based on the title recognition of being a current programming director. In the voter's guide, she is likely to put the fact that she is currently serving in a very similar role, which will be a cue to the undecided voters that she is competent and qualified. Her list of previous ASUW experience is daunting as well with the numerous committees and roles. Definitely a strong candidate.

Jocelyn is also a very strong candidate based on her experience in CORE. She has put on several large events this year and has proven her ability to plan, promote, and complete such events. As long as she can put that proof in front of the voters, she will be a continuous worry to her opposition.

Evelyn, does seem weak on paper, but does have one clear strength: her time as associate director means she will know the duties and methods of the job. That inside and out knowledge is what generally makes for a smooth transition between Directors.

Weaknesses: Jocelyn... I'm trying to find a weakness for her, but I am not seeing one. She is an excellent candidate.

Evelyn's weakness is obvious, her relative lack of experience. She will need to convince voters that her time as associate director is enough to elect her.

Sam is in the same boat as Jocelyn. Based on the information online, she's an excellent candidate.

I'll be paying attention to this race as the campaign continues to see who shows themselves to be the better candidate.